Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Brad Sallows]

Computer models are only as good as the data put into them. We have to be careful when applying the results, as there is always room for error through omission somewhere in the programing. The other side is that they can be manipulated to come to a desired conclusion.

The data are the initial conditions of the systemd of equations for which the computer models are solving. The omissions are deliberate: climate is too complex to be modeled with current technology, and even if we had enough computing power, I doubt we'd ever have anyone capable of understanding everything well enough to write an accurate model. Manipulation is guaranteed: every value ("magic number") used in lieu of an equation or process no-one understands is a manipulation.

 

[dimsum]

To wade back into the Exxon thing, why would Exxon care about climate change? Since they’re selling oil, you’d think they would want to dismiss it, rather than write a report about it.

It seems like they’re shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[suffolkowner]

I know. That's why I suggested you take time to understand "would" and "or".

yeah i still dont get it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

yeah i still dont get it.

The climate doesn't have one point of stability with respect to "global temperature average". Long periods of extensive glaciation are colder, but not permanent. Long periods of negligible glaciation are warmer, but not permanent. If it were possible to tip over into a state of permanent super-cold or super-hot, it would have happened by now (after billions of years for the necessary conditions to line up).

We also don't know what the optimum "global temperature average" is for people. Just based on considering agriculture alone, it is almost certainly not cooler and likely to be warmer. It's unlikely that status quo about three decades ago happens to be the exact optimum. Status quo is just what we're used to. Then throw in the politicians to whom every "crisis is opportunity", and away we go chasing fruitlessly unachievable aims.

 

[suffolkowner]

The climate doesn't have one point of stability with respect to "global temperature average". Long periods of extensive glaciation are colder, but not permanent. Long periods of negligible glaciation are warmer, but not permanent. If it were possible to tip over into a state of permanent super-cold or super-hot, it would have happened by now (after billions of years for the necessary conditions to line up).

We also don't know what the optimum "global temperature average" is for people. Just based on considering agriculture alone, it is almost certainly not cooler and likely to be warmer. It's unlikely that status quo about three decades ago happens to be the exact optimum. Status quo is just what we're used to. Then throw in the politicians to whom every "crisis is opportunity", and away we go chasing fruitlessly unachievable aims.

but it has happened we have had an iceball earth and hot foggy greenhouse. thats the confusion. Not what would and or mean

assumptions about cooler and warmer requires one to understand the changes in biogeography that happen. Paleopalynology helps with that. Doesnt make sense to me to run the experiment just to see what we end up with.

 

[Brad Sallows]

but it has happened we have had an iceball earth and hot foggy greenhouse.

I'm talking about a planet completely frozen or something approximating Venusian conditions.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'm talking about a planet completely frozen or something approximating Venusian conditions.

The last big ice age was within only 100,000 years ago when a 2 mile thick ice sheet gouged out the Great Lakes etc.

A hummingbird heart beat's worth of geological time

Laurentide ice sheet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Brad Sallows]

The last big ice age was within only 100,000 years ago when a 2 mile thick ice sheet gouged out the Great Lakes etc.

We are still in the "last big ice age. Our existence coincides with - and is probably due to - an interglacial period. A little extra heat to stave off the resumption of glaciation might not be a bad thing.

 

[daftandbarmy]

We are still in the "last big ice age. Our existence coincides with - and is probably due to - an interglacial period. A little extra heat to stave off the resumption of glaciation might not be a bad thing.

 

[Good2Golf]

We are still in the "last big ice age. Our existence coincides with - and is probably due to - an interglacial period. A little extra heat to stave off the resumption of glaciation might not be a bad thing.

Proactive anti-glaciation is under appreciated, it would seem.

 

[ArmyRick]

Dr Patrick Moore explains things very well on ice age "waves and mini-waves"

Dr Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeace and eventually walked away from them. What would he know? He is only a PhD scientist.

 

[ArmyRick]

@George Wallace you will enjoy the above video. Its very obvious he didn't listen to the video I posted.

 

[suffolkowner]

Dr Patrick Moore explains things very well on ice age "waves and mini-waves"

Dr Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeace and eventually walked away from them. What would he know? He is only a PhD scientist.

he wasnt a co founder

do you think that there are no PhD's amongst the literature in favour of AGW?

 

[suffolkowner]

@George Wallace you will enjoy the above video. Its very obvious he didn't listen to the video I posted.

what kind of cookie do i get for watching it?

 

[ArmyRick]

what kind of cookie do i get for watching it?

I don't care if I offend you, your showing closed minded zealousness and refusal to look at this argument from multiple sides. Change your views with new information is a concept you should grasp. I do. I was a pretty strong believer in man made carbon emissions driving climate change. until about 5 years ago.

You will find more scientist leaning towards the "its not a black and white case but various shades of grey.." argument than the total one way, no questions asked mind set that you embrace.

I know you didn't watch the first video I put up a day or two ago because everything your doing here is exactly what they warned of. Also Dr Lindzen was one of the IPCC founders and they were told ONLY USE DATA OF MAN MADE climate change and basically ignore the rest.

Keep up your behaviour, its really winning you friends. Good thing we live in a democracy where the majority make the policies.

 

[ArmyRick]

he wasnt a co founder

do you think that there are no PhD's amongst the literature in favour of AGW?

How was not one of the co-founders of Greenpeace? He claims he was one of them and Greenpeace said he wasn't. He left them on bad terms in the 80s. However one fact not disputed is he was there in the very beginning.

 

[suffolkowner]

I don't care if I offend you, your showing closed minded zealousness and refusal to look at this argument from multiple sides. Change your views with new information is a concept you should grasp. I do. I was a pretty strong believer in man made carbon emissions driving climate change. until about 5 years ago.

You will find more scientist leaning towards the "its not a black and white case but various shades of grey.." argument than the total one way, no questions asked mind set that you embrace.

I know you didn't watch the first video I put up a day or two ago because everything your doing here is exactly what they warned of. Also Dr Lindzen was one of the IPCC founders and they were told ONLY USE DATA OF MAN MADE climate change and basically ignore the rest.

Keep up your behaviour, its really winning you friends. Good thing we live in a democracy where the majority make the policies.

Lindzen is an absolute disaster as a climate scientist. He has consistently been wrong

Think about the ridiculousness of your position. That I should disregard what the vast majority of the evidence shows for some random pronouncements on some video that you managed to find somewhere

I told you I didnt watch it

The path of modern climate science research is the exact opposite of which you state. Over the last 50 yrs of the modern theory there has been no alternative that has withstood analysis. That is why there is little disagreement

 

[suffolkowner]

How was not one of the co-founders of Greenpeace? He claims he was one of them and Greenpeace said he wasn't. He left them on bad terms in the 80s. However one fact not disputed is he was there in the very beginning.

yes he was one of the original members. No he wasnt a founder.

 

[YZT580]

Lindzen is an absolute disaster as a climate scientist. He has consistently been wrong

Think about the ridiculousness of your position. That I should disregard what the vast majority of the evidence shows for some random pronouncements on some video that you managed to find somewhere

I told you I didnt watch it

The path of modern climate science research is the exact opposite of which you state. Over the last 50 yrs of the modern theory there has been no alternative that has withstood analysis. That is why there is little disagreement

You do like to insult people don't you? ArmyRick's take on global warming is ridiculous, there is no truth in anything that I wrote and you have ignored most of the comments from others. Most folks who participate on this forum do so to share information and try to expand their own understanding of issues that concern them. By your own admission you don't even bother to evaluate their thoughts or information source before lashing out. You need to open your mind. Scientists have barely started to understand climate. Two studies in just the past few months have revealed that natural elements i.e. plants and water have a greater capability to absorb CO2 than they thought which implies that we are no where near a crisis point. Other research appears to show that increased CO2 is the result of warming and not the cause. Is this true? Doesn't matter. What does matter is that the science is still very much in the exploration phase and is no where near being understood. Take some friendly advise and listen to others without the necessity of showing how wrong they are. There are a number of very wise individuals here and sometimes it pays to just listen... G'day.

 

[suffolkowner]

You do like to insult people don't you? ArmyRick's take on global warming is ridiculous, there is no truth in anything that I wrote and you have ignored most of the comments from others. Most folks who participate on this forum do so to share information and try to expand their own understanding of issues that concern them. By your own admission you don't even bother to evaluate their thoughts or information source before lashing out. You need to open your mind. Scientists have barely started to understand climate. Two studies in just the past few months have revealed that natural elements i.e. plants and water have a greater capability to absorb CO2 than they thought which implies that we are no where near a crisis point. Other research appears to show that increased CO2 is the result of warming and not the cause. Is this true? Doesn't matter. What does matter is that the science is still very much in the exploration phase and is no where near being understood. Take some friendly advise and listen to others without the necessity of showing how wrong they are. There are a number of very wise individuals here and sometimes it pays to just listen... G'day.

Its insulting to say that a post that is completely untrue is untrue?
Its insulting to say that its ridiculous to take the opinion of a random person on the internet over tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of SME? Thats a pretty funny claim considering the position by so many people on this site with respect to their expertise and their reactions in those threads

I never said I dont bother with evaluating their thoughts or information source. I said i dont watch videos because they are almost always a colossal waste of time. But I broke down and started to watch that video. I am 1/3 of the way into and so far there has been no information of any consequence. I guess I should assume that the final 2/3 are better?

What am i to open my mind to? When I take my car to the mechanic I dont ask my 4 yr old grandchild for a second opinion. There has been no evidence presented. There has been no alternative hypothesis. No attempt to address the fundamental questions. No acknowledgement of the literature or the position of the scientific community. We are 40-50 yrs into the study of modern climate science. The first IPCC review was in 1990. Im curious what other scientific theories one would approach in this way

Link to the two studies and we can go over them. But
gas solubility is a function of temperature and
plants arent CO2 limited and global greening has now at least temporarily reversed

Listen to others without the necessity of showing how wrong they are-Is this a two way street?
There are a number of very wise individuals here and sometimes it pays to just listen-Are any of them published climate scientists?

As always the first place to start is with the evidence

AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

www.ipcc.ch